IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 215 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Chander Pal @ Aasu @ Majnoo and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Ms. Rajni Gandhi and Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Sunil Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners- accused for quashing of FIR No.144 of 2011 dated 02.07.2011 under Sections 420, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise. 2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged 2 at the behest of respondent No.4-complainant, who alleged that on 17.6.2011 at around 12:00pm, he received one telephonic call from one Harish Chand from mobile No.092-30247-49771 that he has won one lottery of Rs 10.00 lakh and as such, he may immediately send Rs. 15,700/- for enabling him to transfer the aforesaid sum to his account. Complainant alleged that he was asked from time to time to deposit some amount, which was sought to be recovered as income tax. Complainant alleged that he deposited Rs. 4,30,700/- in total on various dates, but till date, he has not received the Lottery amount. He alleged that he has been defrauded and as such, appropriate action be taken against the persons, who have defrauded him. During investigation, police found that sum of Rs. 4,37,000/- in different installments was got transferred in the bank accounts of the petitioners, who during investigation claimed that they never called the complainant on his mobile phone, rather person namely Dilip Shaw and others had asked for their bank account numbers. 3. Though police has presented challan in the competent court of law but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioners have approached this 3 Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 4. Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, stated that FIR was registered in the year 2011, but till date, prosecution has been not able to examine even single witness, as a result of which, petitioners, who never called upon the complainant to deposit any amount, have been put to undue harassment and ordeal of protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to fail for the reasons that police has not conducted investigation fairly and till date, they have been not able to arrest the main accused Dilip Shaw. 5. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise, however, respondent No.4/complainant Jaswant Singh, has come present in the court and is represented by Mr. Sunil Thakur, Advocate. He stated on oath that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners- accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He stated that since he has received the entire amount i.e. 4,37,000/- from the petitioners, he does not wish to prosecute the case 4 further and shall have no objection in case FIR along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, they also admit their signatures thereupon. 6. Having heard statements made on oath by respondents No.4, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, stated that though respondent/complainant has entered into compromise with the petitioners, but having taken note of the fact that petitioners have committed heinous crime, this Court may not accept the prayer made by the petitioners, however, he fairly admitted that on account of statement made by the respondent/complainant on oath, chances of conviction are remote and bleak. Petitioners, who are present in the court fairly admitted before this court that they had provided their bank account details to the main accused namely Dilip Shaw, Nagender and others, as they were assured by aforesaid accused that they will get some money. 7. True, it is that petitioners herein are accused of heinous crime, but once respondent/complainant has already received his entire amount and he does not wish to prosecute the case further coupled with the fact that there is no evidence worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that respondent/complainant had deposited amount in the bank 5 account of petitioners at their askance, this Court sees no reason to decline the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR, which is otherwise bound to fail on account of statement made on oath by the respondent/complainant. 8. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 9. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the 6 offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences. 10. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 7 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and 8 others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. 13. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.4, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.144 of 2011 dated 02.07.2011 under Sections 420, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. along with consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners, who are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. March 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge